Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO.

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT


NEW YORK COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------- X
WARNER WOLF, : SUMMONS
Plaintiff, :
: Plaintiff designates
v. : NEW YORK COUNTY
: as the place of trial
DON IMUS, CHAD LOPEZ, MIKE MCVAY and :
CRAIG SCHWALB, all in their individual and : The basis of the venue is:
professional capacities, : residence of Defendant Lopez and a
: substantial part of the events or
Defendants. : omissions giving rise to the claims
: occurred in this county
------------------------------------------------------------- X

To the above named Defendants:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve
a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance on the Plaintiff’s attorney within twenty (20) days after service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete if this
summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your
failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief
demanded in the complaint.

Dated: February 15, 2018 WIGDOR LLP


New York, New York

By:
Douglas H. Wigdor
Kenneth D. Walsh

85 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10003
Tel: (212) 257-6800
Fax: (212) 257-6845
dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
kwalsh@wigdorlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 1 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT


NEW YORK COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------- X
WARNER WOLF, :
Plaintiff, : Index No.:
:
v. : COMPLAINT
:
DON IMUS, CHAD LOPEZ, MIKE MCVAY and : Jury Trial Demanded
CRAIG SCHWALB, all in their individual and :
professional capacities, :
:
Defendants. :
------------------------------------------------------------- X

Plaintiff Warner Wolf (“Plaintiff”) hereby alleges against Defendants Don Imus, Chad

Lopez, Mike McVay and Craig Schwalb (collectively, “Defendants”) as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff Warner Wolf enjoyed a long, storied career as a legend in the sports

broadcasting world, having coined such iconic phrases as “Let’s go to the videotape.” However,

not even a broadcasting legend like Mr. Wolf was safe from the well-documented discriminatory

behavior of the infamous radio personality Don Imus. To the contrary, Defendant Imus routinely

made inappropriate comments about Plaintiff’s age, including stating that it was “time to put

[Mr. Wolf] out to pasture” and “shoot him with an elephant dart gun.”

2. Indeed, despite Mr. Wolf’s years of loyal service and unparalleled broadcasting

caliber, Defendants’ discriminatory conduct towards Plaintiff came to a head on October 31,

2016, when Defendants unlawfully terminated Mr. Wolf’s employment based upon his age,

replacing him with a sportscaster decades his junior. Adding insult to injury, after terminating

Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants and non-party Cumulus Media, Inc. refused to honor a

severance clause in Plaintiff’s employment agreement that provided for 26 weeks of severance

pay – amounting to $97,500.00 – in the event of Plaintiff’s termination.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to1 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 2 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

3. As the “videotape” in this case will unquestionably show, Defendants have failed

to adhere to New York’s anti-discrimination laws, and have unlawfully discriminated against Mr.

Wolf based upon his age. So, in the words of Plaintiff, let’s go to the videotape.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to New York Civil Practice

Laws and Rules (“CPLR”) § 301.

5. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to CPLR § 503 as at least one Defendant

resides in New York County and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims

took place in New York County.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff is a legendary sportscaster and a former employee of Defendants and

non-party Cumulus Media, Inc (“Cumulus”). Plaintiff currently resides in Naples, Florida. At

all relevant times, Mr. Wolf fell within the definition of a “person” and/or “employee” under all

applicable statutes. Mr. Wolf is currently 80 years old.

7. Defendant Imus is an infamous radio broadcaster and the host of the radio show

Imus in the Morning (“Imus in the Morning” or the “Show”), which, at all relevant times aired

on WABC Radio (“WABC”) from New York, New York. Upon information and belief,

Defendant Imus currently resides in Brenham, Texas. At all relevant times, Defendant Imus was

Plaintiff’s employer within the meaning of all applicable statutes.

8. Defendant Lopez is a Vice President and Market Manager for Cumulus and

General Manager for WABC. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lopez currently resides in

New York, New York. At all relevant times, Defendant Lopez was Plaintiff’s employer within

the meaning of all applicable statutes.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to2 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 3 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

9. Defendant McVay is Senior Vice President of Content and Programming for

Cumulus. Upon information and belief, Defendant McVay currently resides in Decatur, Georgia.

At all relevant times, Defendant McVay was Plaintiff’s employer within the meaning of all

applicable statutes.

10. Defendant Schwalb is WABC’s Program Director. Upon information and belief,

Defendant Schwalb is a resident of Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. At all relevant times,

Defendant Schwalb was Plaintiff’s employer within the meaning of all applicable statutes.

11. Non-party Cumulus owns WABC and Plaintiff’s employment agreement

described herein was with Cumulus. Although Cumulus was also Plaintiff’s employer within the

meaning of all applicable statutes, as Cumulus filed for Chapter 11 reorganization on November

29, 2017, it is not named as a party in this action pursuant to the automatic stay imposed by 11

U.S.C. § 362.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I. Mr. Wolf’s Employment with Defendants and Cumulus

12. Beginning in approximately December 1996, Plaintiff began to provide his

services for Imus in the Morning, frequently appearing on the Show as a sports contributor.

13. Although the Show was briefly cancelled in April 2007 following a well-

publicized controversy wherein Imus referred to players on the Rutgers University women’s

basketball team as “nappy-headed hos,” in approximately December 2007, Imus in the Morning

returned to the air full-time on WABC.

14. Shortly after the Show’s return to the air on WABC, Mr. Wolf re-joined Imus in

the Morning as the Show’s regular morning sports anchor.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to3 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 4 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

15. As had been the case for the entirety of Mr. Wolf’s broadcasting career, whenever

he appeared on Imus in the Morning, he was captivating, well received and a highly respected

voice in the sports world. Furthermore, over the course of a nearly 20-year period working with

Imus, from approximately 1996 through 2016, Mr. Wolf never missed a show other than for

scheduled vacations.

16. Nevertheless, upon information and belief, Imus in the Morning was responsible

for approximately one-third of WABC’s entire revenue, and, as a result, Imus was routinely left

to call the shots, with the other Defendants authorizing and assisting in any and all of his

decisions or actions, including the unlawful discriminatory acts described herein.

II. Mr. Wolf’s Employment Agreement and Negotiations

17. When Plaintiff first rejoined Imus in the Morning in approximately December

2007, he provided his services for the Show from WABC’s studios in New York, New York.

18. In approximately December 2015, Plaintiff requested permission to begin

providing his services to the Show from his home in Naples, Florida, and not from WABC’s

studios in New York.

19. Defendants Imus and Lopez gave Mr. Wolf permission to relocate and continue

providing his services to the Show from his home in Naples, Florida.

20. When Mr. Wolf first relocated to Florida, his employment agreement (the

“Employment Agreement”) provided for an annual salary of $195,000.00. Plaintiff’s

Employment Agreement further provided that, in the event Defendants terminated Mr. Wolf

without cause, Mr. Wolf would receive 26 weeks of severance pay.

21. Beginning in approximately October 2016, Defendant Schwalb initiated

discussions to re-negotiate Mr. Wolf’s Employment Agreement.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to4 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 5 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

22. In order to remain a part of the WABC team and continue providing his services

for Imus in the Morning from Florida, Mr. Wolf agreed to a significant reduction in his salary,

from $195,000 per year to $80,000 per year.

23. In an October 17, 2016 email, Schwalb confirmed the terms of Mr. Wolf’s new

employment agreement, including that Plaintiff’s new salary would be $80,000.00, effective

January 1, 2017. Schwalb’s October 17, 2016 email further stated, “[w]e will retain the 26

week ‘current salary’ severance language from section 3 of your current agreement.”

24. Plaintiff responded to Schwalb’s October 17, 2016 email the same day, simply

stating, “Confirmed.”

25. On October 18, 2017, Schwalb acknowledged Plaintiff’s confirmation, writing,

“Thank you Warner, very much.”

26. Although Plaintiff and Schwalb briefly discussed the location from which Mr.

Wolf would provide his services during the course of negotiating Plaintiff’s new employment

agreement, it was neither contemplated nor expected – much less required – that Mr. Wolf

would provide his services from WABC’s studios in New York.

27. Furthermore, neither Schwalb’s October 17, 2016 offer nor his October 18, 2016

confirmation of Mr. Wolf’s acceptance made any reference to Mr. Wolf providing his services

from WABC’s studios in New York.

III. Defendants Discriminatorily Terminate Mr. Wolf Because of His Age

28. Before Plaintiff’s new employment agreement went into effect, Defendants

terminated Mr. Wolf’s employment and replaced him with Sid Rosenberg, a sportscaster decades

younger than Mr. Wolf.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to5 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 6 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

29. On October 31, 2016 – less than two weeks after Mr. Wolf confirmed the terms of

his new employment agreement with Schwalb – Imus sent Mr. Wolf an email stating that Imus

“did not think [Mr. Wolf] doing the sports from Florida was working.” Imus wrote, “You asked

me if I was ok with you doing sports from Florida. I said I was. We tried it. It sucks.” Imus

concluded his October 31, 2016 email stating, “If you’re in the studio in New York . . . it’s

terrific. Anything else is not.”

30. At the time of his termination, Mr. Wolf was 78 years old.

31. To the shock of Mr. Wolf’s co-workers and WABC listeners, Mr. Wolf

announced that his November 4, 2016 broadcast would be his last.

32. However, Defendants’ proffered basis for terminating Mr. Wolf was blatantly

pretextual, as Imus acknowledged in his October 31, 2016 email that he had previously approved

Mr. Wolf working from Florida, and Mr. Imus himself had provided his services for the Show

from his home in Texas. To that end, during the recent renegotiation of Mr. Wolf’s employment

agreement, Defendants never stated that Mr. Wolf providing his services for the Show from

Florida was problematic, and there was no requirement that he return to New York in order to

remain with the Show.

33. Furthermore, the quality of equipment that Mr. Wolf used in Florida made it

nearly impossible to tell that he was not located in New York, such that Imus routinely asked

whether Mr. Wolf was located in Florida or New York. Indeed, after Defendants terminated Mr.

Wolf’s employment, on December 26, 2017, Mr. Wolf did a sports broadcast from his home in

Naples, Florida for WOR radio – a station located in New York, New York – with perfect sound

clarity and no indication that he was not present in the studio.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to6 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 7 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

34. Finally, rather than actually offering Mr. Wolf the opportunity to provide his

services from New York – a situation that Imus himself described as “terrific” – Defendants

simply terminated Mr. Wolf’s employment.

35. In reality, Defendants discriminatorily terminated Mr. Wolf based upon his age.

36. As evidence of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, by way of example only,

Imus once commented that it was “time to put [Mr. Wolf] out to pasture” and “shoot him with an

elephant dart gun.”

37. Furthermore, Defendants replaced Mr. Wolf, who was 78 years old at the time of

his termination, with Sid Rosenberg, a sportscaster decades Mr. Wolf’s junior who had

previously been fired from the Show for making crude remarks about a female celebrity’s breast

cancer diagnosis.

38. Upon information and belief, all Defendants were aware of Defendant Imus’s

discriminatory comments towards Plaintiff.

39. Furthermore, all Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was being replaced with

someone several decades younger than Mr. Wolf.

40. On November 4, 2016 – the same day that Plaintiff announced his termination

from Imus in the Morning – the New York Daily News published an article titled, “Sportscaster

Warner Wolf booted from ‘Imus in the Morning’ show” (the “Article”). The Article states that,

when asked why he was leaving the Show, Plaintiff responded, “You’d have to ask Imus that

question.”

41. The following day, November 5, 2016, Imus sent Plaintiff an email accusing him

of lying in the Article, and ominously threatened Mr. Wolf by stating, “don’t go to war with me.”

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to7 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 8 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

42. Furthermore, after Defendants unlawfully terminated Mr. Wolf’s employment,

Mr. Wolf contacted Defendant McVay to remind him of the Company’s obligation to pay him

severance pursuant to the Employment Agreement and to inquire whether McVay could assist in

procuring another role for Plaintiff, either at WABC or another Cumulus-owned station.

Although McVay told Mr. Wolf he would “see what he can do” with respect to finding Plaintiff

another role, upon information and belief, Imus ensured that Plaintiff would not be re-hired by

any Cumulus station, and McVay failed to take any further action to remedy Defendants’

discriminatory conduct. Indeed, when McVay ultimately contacted Mr. Wolf over a year later, it

was only to inform Plaintiff that McVay had heard a reference to Mr. Wolf on the popular

television show “This Is Us.”

43. Adding insult to injury, despite Defendants’ clearly discriminatory and arbitrary

termination of Mr. Wolf’s employment, Cumulus refused to pay him the severance to which he

is entitled to receive pursuant to the terms of his Employment Agreement. To that end, although

Plaintiff reminded Schwalb in a November 2, 2016 email that he was entitled to receive 26

weeks of severance pay at his then-current salary of $195,000.00, Defendants’ actions resulted in

Cumulus breaching its severance payment obligations arising under the Employment Agreement.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION


(Discrimination in Violation of the NYSHRL)
Against All Defendants

44. Plaintiff hereby repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as

contained in each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

45. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the New York State

Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) by denying him equal terms and conditions of employment,

including, but not limited to, terminating his employment because of his age.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to8 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 9 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful and discriminatory

conduct in violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary

and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, loss of past and future income,

compensation and benefits, for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages.

47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful and discriminatory

conduct in violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, severe

mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation,

embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain

and suffering for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION


(Aiding and Abetting Violations of the NYSHRL)
Against Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb

48. Plaintiff hereby repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as

contained in each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

49. Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb knowingly or recklessly aided and

abetted the unlawful employment practice and discrimination against Plaintiff in violation of the

NYSHRL.

50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb’s

unlawful and discriminatory conduct in violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and

continues to suffer, monetary and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, loss of

past and future income, compensation and benefits, for which he is entitled to an award of

monetary damages.

51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb’s

unlawful and discriminatory conduct in violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to9 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 10 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

continues to suffer, severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to,

depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-

confidence, and emotional pain and suffering for which he is entitled to an award of monetary

damages and other relief.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION


(Discrimination in Violation of the NYCHRL)
Against All Defendants

52. Plaintiff hereby repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as

contained in each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

53. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the New York City

Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) by denying him equal terms and conditions of employment,

including, but not limited to, terminating his employment because of his age.

54. As a direct and proximate result Defendants’ unlawful and discriminatory conduct

in violation of the NYCHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or

economic damages, including, but not limited to, loss of past and future income, compensation

and benefits, for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages.

55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful and discriminatory

conduct in violation of the NYCHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, severe

mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation,

embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain

and suffering for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.

56. Defendants’ unlawful and discriminatory actions constitute malicious, willful,

wanton and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s protected rights under the NYCHRL, for which

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.

10New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))


This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 11 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION


(Aiding and Abetting Violations of the NYCHRL)
Against Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb

57. Plaintiff hereby repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as

contained in each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

58. Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb knowingly or recklessly aided and

abetted the unlawful employment practices and discrimination against Plaintiff in violation of the

NYCHRL.

59. As a direct and proximate result Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb’s

unlawful and discriminatory conduct in violation of the NYCHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and

continues to suffer, monetary and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, loss of

past and future income, compensation and benefits, for which he is entitled to an award of

monetary damages.

60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb’s

unlawful and discriminatory conduct in violation of the NYCHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and

continues to suffer, severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to,

depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-

confidence, and emotional pain and suffering for which he is entitled to an award of monetary

damages and other relief.

61. Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb’s unlawful and discriminatory actions

constitute malicious, willful, wanton and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s protected rights

under the NYCHRL, for which Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.

11New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))


This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 12 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION


(Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations)
Against All Defendants

62. Plaintiff hereby repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as

contained in each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

63. Plaintiff had business relations with non-party Cumulus Media, Inc. in the form of

his employment contract.

64. Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s employment agreement with Cumulus.

65. Defendants intentionally procured Cumulus’s breach of the Employment

Agreement by wrongfully and unlawfully terminating his employment with Cumulus.

66. Defendants’ actions caused Cumulus to breach its Employment Agreement with

Plaintiff.

67. As a result of Defendants’ tortious interference with Plaintiff’s Employment

Agreement, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

A. A declaratory judgment that the actions, conduct and practices of Defendants

complained of herein violate the laws of the State of New York and the City of New York;

B. An injunction and order permanently restraining Defendants from engaging in

such unlawful conduct;

C. An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment

interest, to compensate Plaintiff for all monetary and/or economic damages;

D. An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment

interest, to compensate Plaintiff for all non-monetary and/or compensatory damages, including,

12New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))


This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 13 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

but not limited to, compensation for his severe mental anguish and emotional distress,

humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem, self-confidence and personal

dignity, and emotional pain and suffering and any other physical and mental injuries;

E. An award of damages to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, to

compensate Plaintiff for harm to his professional and personal reputations and loss of career

fulfillment;

F. An award of punitive damages;

G. An award of costs that Plaintiff has incurred in this action, as well as Plaintiff’s

reasonable attorneys’ fees to the fullest extent permitted by law; and

H. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein.

Dated: February 15, 2018


New York, New York Respectfully submitted,

WIGDOR LLP

By: _____________________________
Douglas H. Wigdor
Kenneth D. Walsh

85 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
kwalsh@wigdorlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

13New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))


This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 14 of 14

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen